Stevens and Standing

[wserra]

In a prolix and repetitive blog entry, Stevens has responded to this thread. He really says nothing that he hasn't said before, except that he specifically addresses 26 USC 7402(b), the statute that gives the USDCs jurisdiction over the enforcement of IRS summonses. He rambles on and on without ever saying that, under his expert tutelage, one Marc Edwards was sanctioned several thousand dollars for using exactly this argument. We've discussed that case in some detail, beginning here.

For some reason, despite the explicit grant of jurisdiction by Congress, and despite the IRS summons demanding records and a taxpayer refusing to provide them, Stevens concludes that a 7402(b) suit is not a "case or controversy". Someone with more patience than I can go through his cites, if s/he wishes; the opinions of the USDC and the Circuit in Edwards (and a thousand other summons enforcement cases) are good enough for me. Moreover, the very first cite Stevens drops following his quote of 7402(b) is a case concerning mining rights. Shoshone Mining Co. v. Rutter, 177 U.S. 505 (1900). Unless the taxpayer in question buried his records, the relevance is not immediately obvious.

[.]

Prolix. A wonderful word that accurately describes virtually every TP idiot ever to come down the pike.

As has been said, mostly by salesmen, if you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with bullshit. There's no other reason to take 87 pages to lie about and obfuscate simple stuff easily laid out in a sentence or two.

Of course, "clients" like Edwards will never figure that out, not even after they get whacked for a few thousand dollars in sanctions for following their pied piper of the moment. It must really suck to be that ignorant, not to mention stupid.

[wserra]

In one sentence, Stevens actually says it all:

I’m not really interested in the opinion of federal judges, only if the law permits federal courts to hear these IRS civil complaints or not.

Given that it is federal judges who interpret federal law, Stevens means that just one opinion interests him: his own.

Perhaps Stevens could give the IRS the finger, and test out his opinions on his own behalf. But that would mean that he would have to pay the sanctions himself, rather than some poor schmuck who listens to him.

[Joey Smith]

Stevens can't even see his own hypocrisy: His entire position is based on (out-of-context) statements of JUDGES, and indeed the entire first paragraph of his rebuttal is nothing but quotes from JUDGES.

Then, later he says that he doesn't care what judges say.

It is the typical tax protestor idiot view of the law: They embrace legal quotes as gospel when they are favorable, and they throw them away as biased when they are not.

Let's see Stevens attempt to make his argument without quoting any judge. He can't, of course.

Stevens also quotes judges while at the same time ignoring that judges routinely send tax protestors to jail for violating the law, which is just more cumulative proof of the extent to which Stevens falsely takes judicial statements out-of-context to make his blatantly wrong points.

[LPC]

I’m not really interested in the opinion of federal judges, only if the law permits federal courts to hear these IRS civil complaints or not.

And he demonstrates that disinterest by repeatedly (and persistently) mischaracterizing what judges have said.

The only opinions he's interested in are the ones that he can twist and quote of out context.

He also has no interest in the actual language of the Constitution or the statutes of the United States.

What's it called when the only thing you're interested in is your own opinion?

[webhick]

What's it called when the only thing you're interested in is your own opinion?

Adolescence?

[Pottapaug1938]

Stevens also seems to guzzle the "Courts Are Corrupt" kool-aid on a regular basis. Any court ruling which does not adopt Stevens's reasoning is, by its very nature, corrupt and not to be respected.

It's a wonderful all-purpose excuse for TDers. I think of it as an example of "table-pounding", which comes from the old joke about an old lawyer telling a rookie, "when you are in court, and you are weak on the law, 'pound' the facts. When you are weak on the facts, 'pound' the law. When you are weak on both the law and the facts, pound the counsel table."

[Gregg]

Doesn't that usually end with the judge telling you to pound sand?

[Pottapaug1938]

Doesn't that usually end with the judge telling you to pound sand?

For all but the dumbest judges, yes. Some of them (appointed because they have the right patron, or elected because they are the most pliable) can be intimidated by the right blowhard attorney....

[The Observer]

What's it called when the only thing you're interested in is your own opinion?

Mental masturbation.

[Gregg]

...and he's so dumb he still pulls his pants down for that.

[JamesVincent]

What's it called when the only thing you're interested in is your own opinion?

Megalomania?

Borderline psychotic disorder with Narcissistic tenancies?

Stupid?

All of the above?

[LPC]

In one sentence, Stevens actually says it all:

I’m not really interested in the opinion of federal judges, only if the law permits federal courts to hear these IRS civil complaints or not.

A more damning claim is made somewhat later:

The supreme court has held, without any rational basis, that congress can create legal rights and the invasion of them would then constitute an injury to then confer standing in a federal court:

That's right, Stevens has admitted that both Congress and the Supreme Court disagree with him. Congress has created "legal rights" that Stevens believes do not reflect real injuries, and the Supreme Court has ("without any rational basis") held that those statutes create standing.

Once again, snide remarks fail me.

[wserra]

Once again, snide remarks fail me.

You need the updated set of snide remarks.

[Duke2Earl]

In one sentence, Stevens actually says it all:

I’m not really interested in the opinion of federal judges, only if the law permits federal courts to hear these IRS civil complaints or not.

A more damning claim is made somewhat later:

The supreme court has held, without any rational basis, that congress can create legal rights and the invasion of them would then constitute an injury to then confer standing in a federal court:

That's right, Stevens has admitted that both Congress and the Supreme Court disagree with him. Congress has created "legal rights" that Stevens believes do not reflect real injuries, and the Supreme Court has ("without any rational basis") held that those statutes create standing.

Once again, snide remarks fail me.

You simply fail to appreciate that Stevens is smarter than every other person on the entire planet... past and present. tsk, tsk.

[notorial dissent]

Well, I mean after all, didn't Mark declare his absolute wonderfulness and immensity of brilliance in the preface of his book?

What more proof could you possibly want or need than that of his genius?